In a record voter turnout, the Chair keeps his position by the skin of a bee's d. Who says voting is a waste of time because the fat cats always win?
While the chair did indeed scrape home, the company's largest shareholder went out of his way to ensure the chair kept his role.
I heard he was deliberately tipped off - given fair warning, so to speak, that things haven't been up to ASX small-cap speed. Other large shareholders wanted to see how invested the number 1 shareholder is in the Chair.
It's crystal clear now; 100%.
Even then, it was so close it came down to new director, Dr Ron Wise, who determined the outcome. If his 2 million plus votes - all bought on market - went the other way; well, he unselfishly cost himself or Tony Fitz a higher position with the company as superior candidates.
All we regular shareholders can do is judge the company from what is shown from the outside looking in. And let's face it, it hasn't been pretty.
The funding deal is as good as I've seen, but it is tied to a growing share price to extract max value for shareholders; since its announcement, the share price has been withering on the vine of limp promotion.
Markets judge by the demand/sell ratio.
Barely any demand at all.
Fortunately for us holders, despite several flashes of larger buying liquidity for desperate sellers to get out, there's been bugger all selling either.
What this vote signals is those with the inside information - the kind we all want to know - were willing to step up and fight for the status quo. That is, they are aligned and unified in the strategy moving forwards.
Regular shareholders got a few meaningful licks in, too; a couple of metaphorical punches that landed a few bloody noses.
There will be no extra 10% placement on top of the 15% given by the ASX. Unnecessary dilution has been vasectomized.
The Chair's third attempt to lower his "performance" option strike price has been squashed, not ironically on the grounds of poor share price performance.
Perhaps a new higher standard of performance is being set for executives to meet their own goals?
Also, there was a first strike against the remuneration policy, which means all 3 directors will be up for re-election in 12 months time. This further strongly signals directors are expected to meet their goals instead of the usual taking the p that comes with the speculative end of the market.
In sum, those with the most direct access to the company's operations and outlook emerge from a very close vote with a mandate for stability and renewed focus on what is expected by regular investors.
What I will say in support of all directors is they have agreed to take their full salary in shares and, moreover, tied this future income to the successful completion of either of the phase 2 trials.
This is unheard of, and this much, I truly respect.
Time to run through a few green lights.
GLTAH
Add to My Watchlist
What is My Watchlist?
